Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, was on Kudlow and Cramer last night defending the FCC vote loosening media ownership rules. He makes a coherent case, pointing out, for instance, that raising the ownership cap from 35 percent to 45 percent is pretty small potatoes -- although, I would add, with Idaho-sized symbolic significance. Interesting, though, that elimination of the cross-ownership rule, which prohibited owning both the newspaper and TV stations in the same market (with a few exceptions) never came up. Indeed, while Powell made a nod to "localism" he scarcely discussed the situation in local markets at all.

It's true, as he says, that the total number of media outlets has exploded, and the internet has vastly increased access to existing outlets. But all of that has little impact at the local level, where one company can (and often does) dominate just about all the news. Losing the cross-ownership rule can only make matters worse. And if all politics is local, then this has vast implications for democracy as a whole.

Powell made one salient point: The arguments of those (like me) who oppose increased consolidation are undercut in part by the sheer success of the effort to stop the FCC rules. That effort proved, beyond doubt, that public change can be brought about without support, or even meaningful coverage, by major news media. So maybe this page is, in a tiny way, part of the solution to the problem it complains about.

But not quite yet. Kudlow and Cramer said the Senate vote I mentioned Tuesday may not even be considered in the House. And the Senate resolution didn't pass by a large enough margin to withstand a veto.